You are an idiot. You repeat the same nonsense and each time you do you remain an idiot.Your opinion of what the 14th means is not what the 14th means. Sorry.
"Subject to jurisdiction" doesn't mean "subject to US laws" and it's kind of silly... if you are IN the US, you ARE subject to the laws of the US. And US laws don't apply anywhere but in the US. So to say "in the US and subject to the laws of the US" is redundant. And diplomats ARE subject to US laws.. they can't be prosecuted, but they are still subject to the law. Breaking the law, especially if it's intentional, can result in expulsion or the home country waiving diplomatic immunity. Diplomats are still expected to obey all US laws while in our country.
If you bother to read the history behind the 14th and what was debated in structuring the language, you will understand that "subject to the jurisdiction" does not refer to geography. It is referring to allegiance owed. This is repeated over and over in every one of the case law examples you guys are throwing up.
But here is what has happened... Some pinhead on MSNBC has told you that the 14th Amendment confers birthright citizenship, and that's what you believe. You see other pinheads here defending it so you assume it must be correct. When an "evil con" tries to have a rational conversation with you about what the Constitution actually says and how this all works, you reject it because you're trained like a seal to bark the lines you've been taught.
This is an enumerated power of Congress. If illegal alien babies are being born today and becoming citizens it's because of statutory policy which allows it, or in Obama's case, ignores it. This is not a guaranteed right in the Constitution or the 14th Amendment. Congress has plenary power.
All I've repeated is the Constitution and what it says. You can research the meaning of "subject to jurisdiction in the 14th amendment" and find plenty of resource material to explain it to you... avoid liberal biased sources with opinions of what it means, and stick with historical fact-based sources. If you do that, you'll discover that it doesn't mean "geographical jurisdiction" at all, if it did... you would have American citizen soldiers and their wives stationed in Honduras having babies that weren't US citizens because they weren't born in the right geographical jurisdiction.
So it simply cannot mean what you keep interpreting.
The 14th Amendment says that children born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens.
Children born in Honduras to American citizen soldiers are not born U.S. citizens based upon the 14th Amendment- because- of course- they are not born in the United States.
They are born U.S. citizens based upon being born to U.S. citizens
As the court noted in Wong Kim Ark- jurisdiction in the 14th Amendment means the same thing in the first section.
Plyler v. Doe says illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
And therefore- according to the Constitution is a U.S. citizen.
The 14th Amendment says that children born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens.
Correct. And my argument remains, children of two foreign born parents in our country illegally, are not "subject to jurisdiction" and do not qualify. You argue that "subject to jurisdiction" essentially means the same as "within the jurisdiction of law." As of yet, you've posted no finding from any court or argument from any legitimate scholar that the Constitution says what you claim.
Actually I have posted Wong Kim Ark saying exactly that repeatedly.
I will repost what Wong Kim Ark said about 'jurisdiction' again- and you will ignore it- again
United States v. Wong Kim Ark | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
This presumption is confirmed by the use of the word "jurisdiction" in the last clause of the same section of the Fourteenth Amendment, which forbids any State to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It is impossible to construe the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the opening sentence, as less comprehensive than the words "within its jurisdiction" in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons "within the jurisdiction" of one of the States of the Union are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."
Wong Kim Ark specifically stated that 'subject to the jurisdiction' means the same thing as 'within the jurisdiction' in the 14th Amendment
Plyler v. Doe stated that illegal aliens within the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Combine the two- and there is the complete validation of the actual accepted policy in effect today regarding a child born in the United States.
I wonder why Boss has grown so silent on this issue?
Actually I have posted Wong Kim Ark saying exactly that repeatedly.
I will repost what Wong Kim Ark said about 'jurisdiction' again- and you will ignore it- again
United States v. Wong Kim Ark | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
This presumption is confirmed by the use of the word "jurisdiction" in the last clause of the same section of the Fourteenth Amendment, which forbids any State to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It is impossible to construe the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the opening sentence, as less comprehensive than the words "within its jurisdiction" in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons "within the jurisdiction" of one of the States of the Union are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."
Wong Kim Ark specifically stated that 'subject to the jurisdiction' means the same thing as 'within the jurisdiction' in the 14th Amendment
Plyler v. Doe stated that illegal aliens within the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Combine the two- and there is the complete validation of the actual accepted policy in effect today regarding a child born in the United States.